#42-Machete (2010) (Quicky Review)

Machete

Machete is a film that runs into problems quick and often. It's main problem comes from the fact that it is indeed an adapted screenplay, and the concept was originally designed to only run about two and a half minutes, and as two and a half minutes, even maybe at a half hour long, Machete would have been genius. It would have been one of my favorites. But at an hour and forty-five, it just runs to long.

The plot is tired and boring and brought nothing new to the table. But was it suppose to? It is one of those throw-back things that seem to be so hip these days. Danny Trejo's family was murdered, he's been trained by the C.I.A., F.B.I., D.E.A. and all the rest. So, revenge.

The film boasts an impressive cast from the B and A-List Teams. Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Robert De Niro, Steven Sagal, Cheech Marin, and others all make their way into Robert Rodriguez's interesting little grindhouse throwback, and you can tell that everyone involved just had a fun time making the picture. Its over-the-top, it's gratuitious, and (at times) its very fun. Just to sit back and watch it absorb in itself and weird universe that it makes. But the fun times are few a far between. Whereas I really enjoyed Death Proof, and Planet Terror, Machete just doesn't have the same flare to it.

It's pacing and direction feels very, very clunky. It seemed like a series of random events thrown together. Which it originally was, a trailer that wasn't intended to be a film. But once the idea of the film came together, it just seemed like more random events thrown together, to make the random events that took place in the trailer seem a little more plausible, and to actually happen onscreen. Not to mention the final battle that takes place between three different groups is just awful. Its not fun. Its not action-packed. Its exciting. It just felt very off.

Machete is a decent rental at best. The acting is fun, the story is stupid, and it has moments of real hilarity. But there are too few, and there certainly aren't enough for the movie to be an hour and forty minutes long. These grind-house throwback films can be good, they can be really good, but this isn't one of them. The cast had a good time, and its fun to see all these people together, and the few moments that work, really do work, but it's just a tiny idea, stretched far to thin.

I Give Machete A:
2/5

#32-District 9 (2009)

District 9

The surprise hit movie that attacked theatres in the summer of 2009 is coming this way. District 9 was a surprise hit comercially when it was one of the few action films realesed that year, that wasn't already part of an established franchise. The film was also a critcal darling, using its third world message to win over even the toughest of critics. Originally a short film from director Neill Blomkamp, District 9 was action on a budget, being given only $30 Million for production, take that in comparison to Transformers 2 given $200 Million that same year.

District 9 did have some force behind it when it was realesed. It was produced, and greatly enthused by famed Lord Of The Rings director Peter Jackson. The film was also in the shaky-cam style that has grown to be quite popular and finacially success these days. Not to mention the film had great marketing tools, with 'Alien Free Zone' and 'MNU Only' signs nearly everywhere. The film may have been small but it definatly knew what it was doing, and even earned itself a Best Picture nomination at last years Academy Awards.

The story takes place on an alternate version of planet earth, where in 1982, a large alien space craft landed and floated of Johannesburg, South Africa. The aliens are kept in camps in Johannesburg, and are not allowed to speak with humans. In preperation to move the aliens or 'Prawns' as their called, a man by the name of Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is assigned to the job of removing, and relocating them. In a raid of one of the alien houses, he comes across a strange vile of liquid, which he accidently breaks upon and gets covered in it. What happens to him I won't say, as it is very fun to see, but as you can probably guess, it isn't something good. There in lies the story of District 9, a sci-fi action movie that is guranteed to please audiences, all the while throwing political overtones, for those willing to catch them.

"Is that cat food?"

While I did enjoy the film quite a bit, I am one to say that I don't think District 9 is that great of a film. My main problem with it was the style. I can enjoy shaky-cam mockumentary films, I think that they are fun, and if done right very enjoyable. In that sense, I think District 9 is a success. I can enjoy regular film styling, where you have multiple cameras set up to capture the action, rather than one trying to make it feel real. In that sense, I think District 9 is a success. When combining the two however, and talking about the finish product in lies the problem. The two styles have nearly become genres. I am willing to go out on a limb and call Shaky-Cam a genre over a style. And when combining these genres I don't think the finished products feels right. The film moves at the right pace, and his good camera work, but when jumping between footage of interviews telling the story of this man, and watching the story of this man actually unfold take place one right next to the other, we get a very weird clash of camera work, and therefore emotion within us that just can't seem to mesh with one another, and therefore fails.

As far as the politcal message goes, I can see what they are trying to get across. However, I also felt like this may have been an afterthought. You can see overtones of almost anything in any movie if you look hard enough for them (see my review of Avatar) and while it may have been planned, it may also not have been planned, but an accident completly. Whether or not it was there on purpose or not, I'm glad to see the message getting some attention. It could bring some very nice bright young directors to the action genre, trying to tell their story and share with us the problems our world still faces on an everyday basis. And judging on other recent action films, they definatly need a face-lift.

Sharlto Copley gives a very strong performance as Wickus. One of my favorite characters of action movies to come out recently. He is funny, intense, dramatic, and smart. He creates a character that we want to see through to the end, that we root for, and connect with. Another amazing bit that comes with District 9 is when we care for the aliens. The aliens aren't real people, the main one potrayed through technology by Jason Cope, but they are given emotion and characterists through a very strong sceenplay that also make us fall in love with them.

Based on what I've written above, it may sound like I hate the film more than I do. I actually found the film better on an entertainment level than on a critcal level, by which it is also very nice. It had great action moments, a good hero, a devilishly evil villian, a cool plot and a lot of other things going for it. Neill Blomkamp should be very proud of his work, and I see him having a very nice career in the future. Sharlto Copley and Jason Cope perform very well, the film has a great screenplay and is fun to watch. The films styling choices do hurt it, even if every so slightly.

I Give District 9 A:

4/5

#20-Daybreakers (2010)

Daybreakers

Okay, before we start anything here, can we talk about how awesome this one-sheet is? (One-sheet for those who don't know, is the industry word for poster). For me, this is the perfect kind of movie poster. It's simple. Has the title. Has the realese date. Catches the viewers attention, and you pretty much know what it is going to be about. I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time, even before it was officialy announced. Why and how you ask? Let me explain.

Back into 2003, the directors of this film, the Spierig Brothers, made a little independent zombie film called Undead. It had a budget of around $1 million, and was given limited realese, along with some festival screenings. The film sold incredibly well on DVD, and while not being a great movie by any means, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Now, six years later, the Brothers are back again, this time with vampires and $30 million. I heard they were making a movie about a world overrun by vampires, about a year after this was announced, I saw the Daybreakers trailer, and basically, I had a freak-out.

Now, in case you don't know, Daybreakers takes the premise of your typical zombie and vampire films, and turns it on its head. The world has been virtually overrun by vampires. Not crazy, insane, brainless vampires, but vamps that run buisinesses, and drive, and drink blood coffee. People that do not get enough blood, go crazy and turn into your run-of-the-mill brainless vampire. There are a few humans left in the world, and those who are, simply try to survive. Unfourtanetly for the vampire society, the human population is almost extinct, and they are running out of blood, so soon, every will be "Underdwelers", going crazy, ravenous, and consuming all.

"I don't touch human blood."

For a weird horror genre-bender, Daybreakers actually has a fairly nice cast attached to it. Ethan Hawke plays our main vampire, with Sam Neill as the evil corporation executive. Then we have our heroes, played by Claudia Karvan and Willem Dafoe. Surprisingly, the cast does fairly well for the most part. Ethan Hawke does a fine job as our main character, and Willem Dafoe is always fun, especially in supporting roles.

The Spierig Brothers (Michael and Peter) do a good job for the most part, adapting their script to the big screen. Unfourtanetly for them, they aren't the best of writers, and these wonderful actors are given some pretty bad dialouge to read. Most of the effects are done decently, and there is a substanstial amount of gore in the film as well. The only problem is, the entire film takes place in one town, which would be fine, but the entire world is suppose to be overrun, and all we ever see is the tiny little town. Also, a good surprise, the Brothers managed to fit a little political message in here as well, and hopefully people will pick up on this, with the healthcare bill just being past and all.

Overall, Daybreakers was a fun goofy ride. It was a film about vampires taking over the world, and thankfully, it knew what it was, and never took itself to seriously. The make-up, and visual effects are done rather nicely for a moderate budget, and they had some very good actors to play some interesting roles. Unfourtanetly, the budget was a little to small for the scope of the project, and the dialouge is a little weak. But like I always say, there is a difference between a good movie, and a fun movie, and Daybreakers was definatly a fun ride.

I Give Daybreakers A:

3/5

#10-Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes. Well, hasn't your face been shy of the spotlight for quite some time now, eh? I'm sure that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is actually quite happy about that, after seeing my creation thrashed about numerous times by various people, a break would be nice after awhile. Why did you have to go and ruin it Guy Ritchie? Mr. Holmes does have an interesting history though, Conan Doyle published four novels and fifty-six short stories that featured the character, he was then used, and re-created by various other authors, the stories were then adapted into fourty-one episodes of the classic series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. But then, in 1985, Steven Speilberg and Barry Levinson tried to adapt Holmes for a new audience in, The Young Sherlock Holmes. The project was a failure and was lost and forgotten about forever. Now, both Sherlock Holmes and direct Guy Ritchie have spotty track-records, is there anyway for this film to stay afloat?

Let's begin with the story of the film, which is my main flaw. This movie is, obviously, suppose to be a mystery, which it is, and mysteries, in all forms, whether it be film, television, novel, whatever, they are suppose to give the viewer, or reader, clues along the way to help them figure out the mystery. Sherlock Holmes doesn't. It seems that the main story itself gets pushed aside for brawly action sequences, and scenes of Holmes and Watson puttering back and forth with each other. Don't get me wrong, the mystery is cleary layed out, for us, they say, this happened, whodunnit? But they don't allow us to guess who exactly it is. The film then wraps up very quickly (and annoyingly) leaving the door completely open for a sequel (which I'm sure it'll have)

Now, above me I mention "Holmes and Watson puttering with each other." And though that may sound like a complaint, I actually felt that it was one of the better parts of the movie. Robert Downy Jr. and Jude Law give excellent performances. I typically like Downy Jr. and this movie is no exception, he is doing his typical thing, with some funny nuances, and kind of a drunken appeal, and it works like it did in Iron Man. However, I always approach a Law film with caution, he did however greatly surprise me though, being serious enough to be the responsible one, but being silly enough to keep up with Sherlock. The only problem I had in the acting department was Rachel McAdams, and usually, I like McAdams, not good, not bad, but passable. Here she just didn't know what to do. Whether this is attributed to her or the direction, I do not know.

"Discombobulate"

Guy Ritchie is still developing his life as a director. He is not a great director by any means, but he is a decent one at least. He throws his typical flair and style into the film, and as much as I like it, and as cool as it is, it just doesn't seem to fit into a film set in the 19th century. Speaking of the 19th centure, all the costumes, and buildings and make up looks fantasic in the movie. Everything is realistic and nice to look at. There is even quite a funny bit that deals with a false noes that was one of my favorites.

As much as I am putting the film down it still was a fun experience. It's an action movie, granted an action mystery, and the action is done well. The special effects are not Avatar by anymeans, but it's easy to make something we don't know look real, it's harder to make something we know look real when it's not. Trains crashing through docks and buildings, we can imagine that. Blue people jumping on dragon birds, not so much. The film also had some cool sound design, when bullets whiz past characters heads, we have a temporary silence followed by a ringing before sound is restored to us.

And really, Sherlock Holmes wasn't that bad of a film. Granted it's not as good as, maybe, District 9 or Avatar, it's still a nice little hold-over until something like Iron Man 2, or Kick-Ass comes along. The story was dull, and boring, and didn't follow Doyle tradition at all. While that kind of bugged me, it wasn't anything to bad. The acting was mostly good by everyone involved, it's fun to listen to Holmes and Watson sqwable back and forth to each other. Guy Ritchie does a decent job directing, as he usually does, with nothing special, or particularly bad. The art direction is lovely, and gives everything a dark, grungy, feel, we are also treated to some pretty nice special effects to boot!
I Give Sherlock Holmes A:
3/5

#8-Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Inglourious Basterds


The latest film from influential American writer-director Quentin Tarantino, comes with the very provocative title of Inglorius Basterds. Now the title alone leaves a lot of ground to cover, to live up to a title of that quality takes some skill, but my trust was in Tarantino from the beggining. Now, I am a fan of Tarantino's other works. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, the list can go on. The films are notable for the outstanding camera work, dialouge and acting that he makes sure to keep in for his fans, and fans of film in general. His movies usually tend to be omages to film genres that have come to pass, and are usually not expored by todays Hollywood controled cinema. Tarantino certainly has the writing chops for his films, they are all very unique, and stand out against so many films that are the same. While Tarantino used to be an independent film maker, the success of Kill Bill, and an already very heavy cult staus propelled him into new found stardome. Upon hearing about this film coming out, and being his first REAL film since Kill Bill, I was a little suspicious that he may have fallen into the trap of typical filmmaking. But boy, did he ever prove me wrong.




Inglourius Basterds was in the writing process nearly as long as Avatar. Tarantino had started the work before, and during the filming of Pulp Fiction, back in 1995. However, he was halted from the project, from having a little writers block, as well as him and Uma Thurman creating the character of The Bride while on set. So Tarantino pushed aside his WWII film in favor of Kill Bill. He was stopped once again during writing to work on his half of Grindhouse, Death Proof. And that is when Inglorious Basterds finally came to fruition. Nearly 14 years after the original idea.

The plot of this film is very fun. The plot follows the Basterds who are sent into Nazi occupied France as civilains. The find, kill, and scalp the Nazi's they find, and leave the bodies behind. While the film was advertised as only following the Basterds, we also have the plot of Shoshanna, whose theatre has been selected by the Nazi party to have the premiere of a film. And she, is Jewish. There is also another plot thread, that I wish to not spoil here.

"Sound good?"

As always, I really enjoyed Tarantino's writing. Not only his dialouge, but his writing in general. I actually heard the interesting idea yesterday, that Inglorious Basterds could easily be turned into a stage production, as many scenes are very lengthy and take place in single rooms. On the topic of lengthy scenes, this movie is two and a half hours long, which may turn some people off, but please, stick with it, this kind of film needs attention, as it is so great, yet very underused.

From a technical standpoint, the film is very nice as well. The pacing is even, the effects are nice, the costumes are very much from that era, and the sets are well constructed. I would also like to point out that this movie does feature a typical Tarantino soundtrack, that consists of Western tunes, and pop/punk ballads. I always love the music in his films, it gives the scenes a sense of, urgency, and his credits, which typically have nothing going on in the background, are always fun to watch for the music. Also worth note, this like many Tarantino films, a very violent, and very bloody.

The acting in this film is great by nearly everyone involved. Brad Pitt does an excellent job as Lt. Aldo Rain. I was a bit skeptical upon hearing about his casting, but was greatly surprised. Christoph Waltz, who plays the Jew Hunter, is the best villian since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and the supporting cast does great as well. The only acting problem was in Eli Roth. I know he's friends with Quentin, and he's a great director, but he can't act.

Overall, as you can tell, I really enjoyed this movie. And, while it doesn't quite recive a 5/5 (which I save for my Best Picture, made me cry films) it certainly gets very close. The direction is great as always. It's fun to listen to the characters talk, the techincal lighting and pacing is nice, and both Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz should at least get Oscar nods for their preformances. I just loved this movie, and it is another to add to Tarantino's long line of success's.

I Give Inglorious Basterds A:

4.5/5

#6-Avatar (2009)

Avatar

After nearly twelve years of production, James Cameron's epic about giant smurfs is here! Just kidding, I loved that South Park. Anyway, Avatar was written right after Cameron finished Titanic in 1997. Cameron sold the rights to the film, but couldn't make it, as he had to wait for "technology to catch up" with his ideas. So, it is now 2009, and he realesed his film, and he needs you to go see it. Why? Because this movies estimated budget is around $500 Million dollars, thats right, half a billion dollars. And so far, with it making about $270 million in two weeks, its not that far of a cry. But, the question I have is in the advertising campaign. They are heavily relying on the fact that this is "from the writer/director of Titanic" and this is a heavy Sci-Fi film, and he is also the writer/director of Terminator, T2, and Aliens, why not markey with those movies Fox? Of well, look at its grosses, there is a reason I'm not in the add bussiness.

Now, upon seeing the advertisements for this film (which were terrible, by the way), I was very skeptical, it was definatly going to be totally awesome, or totally fail. For the most part, it was very awesome, but there are some things that bothered me about the movie, character and story wise anyway. Lets also not forget that this movie is nearly three hours long. Though I give credit to Cameron, because the movie kept most of its momentum going, and only felt long at about the two hour, forty-five minute mark.

Though you probably already know, Avatar is about a government program set in the future, 2154 is the year if my memory serves, and we have found a distant space planet, which we now call Pandora. On Pandora we find this little tiny rock that sells for a lot of money, and is a great source of energy. However, and indigineous people live on the giant threshold of it, and we need them to get off. So, we create half human, half Na've (the blue people) hybrids called Avatars that we can put people into. Hence, Avatar.

Now, I may as well point out what everyone else is pointing out, that the story is way over used, and to me seemed very cliche. Dances With Wolves, The Last Samuri, hell, Pochohantas all had the same basic principals that this movie does. You know, I'm just going to dedicate this paragraph to problems, so I don't have too many paragraphs. The dialouge also seemed very corny some times "my brother, the best scientist on the planet, was killed, all for the paper in his wallet" in dramatic voice overs certainly do not help this movie very much. The characters were, for the most part annoying, underwritten, and totally lacking in many human emotion. That being said, I though that the main Na've, played by Zoe Saldana, was both emotionally rich, and was played amazing. Also, the acting was pretty typical, and card-board-cut-out, by just about everyone else. Except maybe Sigourney Weaver....

"Sir, we got a native doing the funky chicken."

But, even with all those negatives, you won't really notice them until after the fact, and that's what matters. During the movie, you aren't thinking about things like that, (except maybe the acting), unless you go to the movie looking from a critical standpoint which most people do not.

Most people going into Avatar are expecting some pretty good effects, some action, and watching stuff blow up. And you get it. While there isn't a ton of action to the film, there is a ton of effects. While most people are praising the motion capture used on the actors, I think that the enviornment looked much better than the creatures themselves. They manage to make this entire world, which is ficticous, and not based on any real life plants or animals, and make it 100% belivable, and real.

The motion capture was decent, but some of it I just didn't like. The textures on the Avatars looked very fakey to me, but the real Na've looked really good, I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was noticed, in fact, I think that the Na've look better when we don't see them as a human first. I have made the estimation that this is because if we see them as humans first, then we know what to expect from them as Avatars, and this whole motion capture stuff isn't perfect yet, so until you get used to it, it is a little underwhelming.

I have a lot of mean words for Avatar, but I won't post them here. For those going into this movie thinking it is going to be politcally powerful like most people are claiming it to be, then prepare to be dissapointed. If you are going into expecting a good story, prepare to be dissapointed, if you are going into it expecting great special effects, cool action, and just a plain ol' fun movie, then you will get your moneys worth.

I Give Avatar A:
3/5